Customer Discussions > Music forum

Rock music wasn't really good until The Beatles


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 205 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 28, 2012 7:44:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 8:20:37 AM PDT
W. Robinson says:
There are those who opine that The Beatles had "ruined rock 'n roll". But, on the contrary, I don't think that rock music TRUELY was good UNTIL The Beatles had came along and improved it. What say you fellow Amazonian ?

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 8:13:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 8:14:10 AM PDT
Fischman says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 8:19:05 AM PDT
Chazzzbo says:
WR -

For sure...I mean Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Fats Domino were really stinkin' up the joint.

Please...

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 8:19:51 AM PDT
Randy says:
Two words:

Link Wray

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 8:20:49 AM PDT
Randy says:
Seriously, there was GREAT rock music before the Beatles; granted, it was different from what followed, but it was still great music.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 8:26:06 AM PDT
EvenSteven says:
Amen Brother Randy!!!!!!!!

Link & Scores of other artists that range from the growing surf scene in S Cal, to the great soul/R&B artists on Atlantic, Chess, Excello, VJ, to the many Rockabillies (Sun/Meteor/Federal to name only a few) & the Brill Bldg scene which launched some great girl groups sounds. All of which the Beatles adored & were influenced by (cept surf).....Yes brothers & sisters there really was rock & roll before the fab four......go & dig some NOW!

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 8:27:29 AM PDT
The Beatles "ruind rock" .. "rock wasnt good until them" ... personaly I think BOTH those statements are stupid and wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 8:49:55 AM PDT
John and Paul would have strongly disagreed. There wouldn't be any Beatles without Roy Orbison's sensitivity, early Elvis's energy, Buddy Holly's confidence, Little Richard's pizazz, Chuck Berry's raw power, Jerry Lee Lewis's sexuality, and the polish of groups like the Righteous Brothers and Everly Brothers.

I agree that music after the Beatles has more randomness and complexity. Part of that has to do with 4 track and 8 track studio overdubs, FM radio, and young people being able to afford stereo turntables. But sometimes I also like simplicity. Jack White is one of very few people who can do what those 1950's guys did. It's not as easy as you might think. There's no room for fakery when you only have one track of recording ability.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 9:18:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 9:23:32 AM PDT
Johnny Bee says:
You guys had great music long before the Beatles (the blues) you just didn't appreciate it until a bunch of skinny white boys from England [enter your band of choice] came along. And the Byrds, while influenced by the Beatles in the beginning, were arguably a better band anyway. And can you imagine how exciting it must have been to see Elvis, Bo Diddley; Chuck Berry; Jerry Lee; Link Wray; Little Richard; Buddy Holly et al in the 1950s. I'm not a big fan of the Beatles, but appreciate their importance. However, to imply that everything was a bit crap before they came on the scene is ridiculous in the extreme.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 10:33:49 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 27, 2013 7:10:47 AM PDT]

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 10:40:31 AM PDT
Stratocaster says:
Great post mr. critic.

I was about to type your first paragraph almost verbatim, when I saw that you beat me to it!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 10:41:42 AM PDT
"the Byrds... were arguably a better band anyway"

ridiculous in the extreme

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 10:44:22 AM PDT
Who thinks the Beatles "ruined" rock and roll?

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 10:50:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 10:51:35 AM PDT
The Beatles did EXPAND rock music and make it more SOPHISTICATED and DIVERS. They used more different types of instruments in their music than any group before them ( rock n roll was previously just drums and guitars, maybe an ocasional piano or saxophone ) and brought in more influences other than just the blues and country. Weather one likes it better or less is a matter of personal afinity however.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 11:11:44 AM PDT
Stratocaster says:
There was a thread similar to this one a while back (wish I could find it) where one the posters (wish I could remember who) put up an incredibly comprehensive list of all of the Beatle's ground breaking "firsts" including the influences they incorporated into their music (East Indian, Baroque, Country, etc) the first string quartet ever used in a Rock song, Instrumentation firsts (Sitar, Moog, Mellotron, etc). The list was 50 ITEMS LONG! Who else can claim that?

Of course there will always be the ol' stick in the mud who proclaims that "real" Rock & Roll begins and ends with the Doo Wop and Rock-a-billy bands of the 50's. To them, yes, it would probably seem as though the Beatles did ruin their Rock and Roll. They certainly did CHANGE it, and elevated it in every way possible. But to say they "ruined" it would seem a bit ignorant.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 11:13:58 AM PDT
Stratocaster says:
Oops. Sorry Ian Robinson. Seems I just reiterated YOUR post.
Oh well, just take it as "backing up" your story.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 11:22:42 AM PDT
Randy says:
Stratocaster, you are the 2nd person to bring up the phantom "they" who claims that the Beatles ruined Rock & Roll. Not one responder to this thread has even come close to saying that; almost every poster has acknowledged that the Beatles changed and/or expanded and/or elevated the music. You and W. Robinson both appear to be tilting at windmills, creating enemies that really don't exist, at least within the confines of this thread.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 11:31:17 AM PDT
Aqualung says:
maybe it would be better to say "rock wasn't fully developed as a stand-alone genre until the Beatles came along." All the great blues/country/pop artists of the 50's (and before) set the stage, the Beatles turned on the lights, and then thousands of artists of different styles came out and joined them.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 11:35:03 AM PDT
Stratocaster says:
Randy - "The Beatles ruined rock 'n roll" was actually the name of one of the threads right here in the Music forum. Look for it.
So STFU!

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 11:38:40 AM PDT
Fischman says:
I think Mr. Robinson was responding to an assertion by "he who must not be responded to." The assertion was definitely made in another thread, but wasn't really worthy of response (as usual). However (feel free to correct me if I'm out of line, Mr R.) but I took it as though the thread was intended to reinvigorate the discussion of how groundbreaking the Beatles were (as if that was necessary, at least with those on this thread--unless of course, "he who must not be responded to" shows up).

BTW, the Beatles got the push for using the Mellotron from those who would become its greatest practitioners in pop/rock music: Mike Pinder and The Moody Blues. Previous to that, Graham Bond recoded rock music with one in 1965--the Beatles didn't record with one until 1966.

I guess, when you've done that much innovatin', you even get credit for innovations you didn't innovate! (which helps answer that "Why are there so many anti-Beatle threads?" question)

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 11:41:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 12:09:03 PM PDT
Randy says:
RE: "The Beatles ruined rock 'n roll" was actually the name of one of the threads right here in the Music forum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps, then, that would be the place to address those who make that claim. I only pointed out that no one on this thread had even hinted at such. In fact, everyone on this thread had responded with respect and an open mind.

Until your last post, that is.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 11:42:07 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Sep 28, 2012 11:44:11 AM PDT]

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 11:52:55 AM PDT
Stratocaster says:
Randy - I believe you're the one who launched the attack here. Just because you didn't close yours with the appropriate salutation of "STFU" doesn't change that fact.

Hey, I'm one of the one's here on these threads that says "have at it". If someone want's to call someone out on the carpet regarding something they posted, by all means go for it. But for 2 things:

A) you better have your facts straight

B) be prepared to take the heat in response, whether you're right or wrong. Because 98% of the "stuff" posted on these threads is opinion, not fact.

Besides, true conversation doesn't exist without some element of debate.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 11:58:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 12:01:40 PM PDT
Randy says:
I have no problem engaging in true debate, arguing facts or opinions as the situation warrants. I did not attack, but pointed out, in a respectful manner, what I saw as a fallacy in your post. The first time an "attack" was launched was when you told me to STFU. Nothing I had said warranted such a response from you.

As far as having my facts straight, you are absolutely right. If you had ended your response to me after ponting out the existence of the "Beatles ruined rock & roll" thread, I would have apologized and acknowledged my mistake. Only when you turned your response into a personal attack did I become offended.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 12:36:44 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 28, 2012 12:46:52 PM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  42
Total posts:  205
Initial post:  Sep 28, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions